They'll Eat Their Young, Their Old, And Whoever Else Is In Their Way

The Democrats have completely lost it. Rather than stepping back, and taking a look at the argument, they've opted to go on the attack. The focus of their ire? Why, it's Sen. Joe Lieberman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901934_pf.html

The Connecticut Democrat's strong public defense of Bush's handling of the Iraq war has provided the White House with an invaluable rejoinder to intensifying criticism from other Democrats. In public statements and a newspaper column, Lieberman has argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a "colossal mistake" for the Democratic leadership to "lose its will" at this critical point in the war.

Lieberman's contrarian behavior is not out of character -- he is far more hawkish than the majority of Democrats, and he has vigorously backed invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein from the beginning. But the latest defense of Bush and his stinging salvos at some in his own party have infuriated Democrats, who say he is undercutting their effort to forge a consensus on the war and draw clear distinctions with Republicans before the 2006 elections.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is troubled by Lieberman's comments, Reid's aides said. "I've talked to Senator Lieberman, and unfortunately he is at a different place on Iraq than the majority of the American people," Reid said yesterday.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters this week that "I completely disagree" with Lieberman. She added: "I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is on is not making the American people safer, making our military stronger and making the region more stable."

Liberal political groups, including Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, are considering ways to retaliate, including backing a challenge to Lieberman in next year's Democratic primary. Former senator and Connecticut governor Lowell P. Weicker Jr., an opponent of the war, has vowed to run as an independent, absent a strong Democratic or Republican challenge to Lieberman.

Wow. Talk about a turnaround. Just five short years ago, Lieberman sat on the same ticket as Al Gore, and his party couldn't speak highly enough about him. Now, he's the Democrat's "public enemy number one" and is slowly being frozen out of anything having to do with the party. What's really irritating about this is that in 2004, Lieberman could have been their ticket back to the White House. Instead of his former running mate endorsing him, Gore endorsed Dean, just weeks before Dean's campaign collapsed. Lieberman was the one person who could have literally united the nation--conservatives, liberals, and moderates, alike--but they left him out to dry. And instead of playing 2004 smarter, they took a huge step back in endorsing and supporting an extreme liberal candidate in John Kerry.

The way the party is treating Lieberman is much the same way the party treated Zell Miller after his invitation to speak at the RNC in 2004; he was shunned, ridiculed, and slammed on every front. The media tried to do it's worst, and Miller made them look stupid. (Ask Chris Matthews if his butt still hurts after the reaming that Miller gave him live on TV after his speech.) But this sort of behavior should come as no surprise to anyone.

Since 2000, the Democrats have had a steady march to the Left. They have grabbed a hold of the moonbat fringe, and they tried to ride them to victory in 2004. They lost there, and rather than truly reevaluate their party and it's platform, they dug in their heels, and moved even further to the left. Joe Lieberman's right: The president does have a plan for victory in Iraq, and we owe it to the commander-in-chief and the troops to see this through.

The Democrats don't want this, though. And based on the quotes above, you can see that, once again, they're trying to spin the facts. A majority of this country isn't against this war. They may have questions about it, and how it's going, but they aren't against it. On the contrary, the antiwar zealots haven't gained any real traction against the administration. And there a few reasons for this.

First, there's no draft, which was a major sticking point in Vietnam. College campuses aren't inflamed with the antiwar rhetoric like it was during Vietnam. We're an all volunteer military now, and only those wishing to serve are serving.

Second, unlike Vietnam, we were attacked. Terrorists attacked us on 11 September. That's why this war is called the "Global War On Terror." Yes, we took care of Afghanistan, and then we moved onto Iraq. Despite the antiwar Leftists, Iraq was a threat for one simple reason: The ties to terrorists that Saddam Hussein had, and his repeated attempts to hurt this nation, and our assets abroad.

Third, there is more support for our troops now than there was in Vietnam. People aren't buying the defeatist propaganda from the media. They're seeing a different picture, and hearing a different story from the troops that return home. And the alternative media is fighting the MSM with the truth, which is making a significant difference.

But Lieberman's party can only think of cut-and-run. A complete withdrawal, or as Dean puts it a "strategic redeployment." "Howling Mad" Howie has no clue was a strategic redeployment is. If he did, he wouldn't be denying the idea of the cut-and-run strategy. That's what such a deployment is.

Buit Lieberman wasn't finished with the Democrats. This past week, he gave his party a tongue-lashing.

"History will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust to join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq," Lieberman said. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

And, of course the Democrats had a nasty little retort of their own.

"Senator Lieberman is past the point of being taken seriously in the caucus because everything he does is seen as advancing his own self-interest, instead of the Democratic interest," said a senior Senate Democratic aide, who described discontent in that chamber as "widespread."

The liberal antiwar group MoveOn.org is weighing whether to back a challenger to Lieberman. MoveOn Washington director Tom Matzzie called Weicker "a very attractive candidate" but added that "the easiest way to take out Joe Lieberman would be in a Democratic primary."

"The Democratic silence has been deafening on this for the past two years," Weicker said in an interview. "I have no more respect for them." But if Lieberman doesn't begin to distance himself from Bush's war policies, he said, "that's it -- we go to the mat."

Lieberman's going to have a tough road ahead of him. If the Democrats are already lining up to deal with him in 2006, then he's not getting any DNC funds. His money will have to be raised from his constituents. One thing's for sure, the Senate can't afford to lose such an honest voice of reason and conscience. He is taking over where Zell Miller left off, and where I do disagree with him on a number of other issues, I don't disagree with him on the war.

If anyone saw my post a couple of days ago on what the GOP's platform should be in 2006 and beyond, then you saw what the first thing was on that list. Win The War, period. If we don't win the war, nothing else matters. Lieberman's preaching a "stay the course, trust the administration" attitude. He's right, and his collegaues in the Democrat party against such a policy are just dead wrong.

But the Left is showing it's true colors. Go off the reservation, and this is what happens. The cannibals will eat their young if they have to.

Publius II